• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Please help! Incompetent Building Inspectors

TerryM said:
I recently purchased a commercial building (banquet hall) in Spring 2024 located in the city of Sheboygan, WI (population of 50,000). During my first occupancy inspection of Spring 2024, the building inspector requested a life safety plan from the original architect, which I did provided. Everything was approved.

Fast forward to February 2025 (approximately 11 months later), I applied for a liquor license, which required an additional occupancy inspection. The new building inspector walked through the location and did not agree with the original design of the building and the life safety plan. He stated that the design of the building did not meet the safety code, not enough exits for the occupancy load, and new fire walls had to be created.
Click to expand...
Please clarify:
1. When you purchased the building in Spring of 2024, was it already permitted by the building department specifically for a banquet hall assembly use? Or was it something else, like a commercial retail space, that you were changing into a banquet hall?

2. When you say "everything was approved", does that mean it was already built and furnished the way you wanted it, and the Spring 20204 inspector issued a Certificate of Occupancy? Or do you mean that in spring of 2024 you were issued a building permit for future tenant improvements, and 11 months later you are undergoing a final inspection on a building construction permit?

3. In the Spring of 2024, did the inspector know you were going to apply for a liquor license in the future, and did you ask the Spring 20204 inspector to review for code compliance based on the assumption that a liquor license application was pending? See post #25.

4. In the 11 months since Spring of 2024, was there any changes proposed besides the liquor license? For example, do you have less banquet tables and more dance floor, or anything else that could affect the occupant load?

5. Has the 2025 inspector(s) told you what they think the maximum allowable occupant load is, based on your current configuration? How does that compare with what you had hoped to acheive?
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
This likely would have had a different result in the U.S., because the code specifically states the the code official has no authority to approve a violation.
Click to expand...
This case was not really about who was right or wrong about the code. The person was entitled to compensation because the municipality failed to follow the process it agreed to follow. The municipality then could very well have sued the original building official for failing to enforce the code (not sure if it did that or not).
 
tmurray said:
This case was not really about who was right or wrong about the code. The person was entitled to compensation because the municipality failed to follow the process it agreed to follow. The municipality then could very well have sued the original building official for failing to enforce the code (not sure if it did that or not).
Click to expand...

Understood. In the IBC (unless the jurisdiction amends or deletes chapter 1) the building official is indemnified against liability for errors in the performance of his/her duties. I suppose that could still leave the jurisdiction liable, but the underlying sense is that primary responsibility for code conformity lies with the property owner.
 
tmurray said:
The municipality then could very well have sued the original building official for failing to enforce the code (not sure if it did that or not).
Click to expand...

No record of a decision if it did. Reading the case (again) yesterday, it certainly seems as if the original BO did not take into consideration several key elements of Part 9.
 
A lot depends on whether the new inspector is right. To determine that, you need code sections.

Prior approval means nothing if it was wrong. You lose cool points as a building department, so we try to avoid that scenario as much as possible, but in the end if the next guy who comes through catches something the first guy didn't, it needs to be addressed. If it's not really a big deal (like a T&P discharge pipe termination being an 1/2" too high or too low), then a reasonable inspector might punt on it if it had been previously approved, but they legally have no obligation to do so.
 

Title: Incompetent Building Inspectors​

Where did TerryM go?

Lots of questions on this from the forum members, or is this inspector bashing?
 
UPDATE: 3 days later since my last post, a follow-up inspection was conducted today. The inspector now says upon further review of the "life saving plan" (created in Spring 2024), the only issue needed to be corrected was installing a new wall with a 1 hour fire door between the kitchen and bar. He stated according to the life saving plan design, it does not show a door but it does show a small line that resembles a partial wall. No additional alterations is needed and capacity load remains the same.

I guess it's probably best to take the deal, put up the wall, then move on with life.

Sorry for the late response. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out and pointing me to the right direction.
 
I run into this kind of stuff in St Louis County all the time. I attribute this to lack of oversight and accountability of the inspectors. The problem you have when you have 80+ municipalities shoehorned into a county of 500 sq miles, where cities with 300 to 12,000 people have their own building department, and the Cities are now lining up to pay hundreds of thousands of people for civil rights violations to avoid lawsuits in federal court (last count was 6 were refunding all ordinance violation citations issued since 2011).

Its usually the young guys who fail items that were passed by other inspectors. In Missouri we have some laws and caselaw.

1. A statutory city is ruled by Dillons rule, gives you substantial power in court if the City Inspector is assuming the powers granted by ICC. Pittsburg 1907 adopts Dillons rule in book form, so ONLY the City council may, by ordinance, create any rules, regulations, policies or ordinances.. If the inspector is using the powers granted by the ICC, the ICC is violating 10th amendment. As only the state has such powers.
A statutory city CANNOT confer any ability to make a law, a rule, a regulation to a city official. The city council must pass it exactly by ordinance.

2. A Charter City is also ruled by Dillons rule, but some ambiguity.

3. In Missouri (and this is usable in other states as its a ruling on the US Constitution), Bazeyiff v City of St Loius makes several clarifications of Camara v municipal court, US v Dunn, Collins v Virginia and all their progeny.
The most important in YOUR case is that the City and the inspector exist at the pleasure of your State.
That the BURDEN of PROOF of health and safety is on the City not on you.
That you are guaranteed the right of administrative due process of law under the 4th amendment.
Someone might apply 5th amendment "regulatory taking of property"

4. Missouri statute 327, as in most states regulates professional engineers as the only entity that can purport to do work of health and safety on buildings. Like impersonating an attorney or a doctor violations are a class a misdemeanor. While the inspector can grant variances or anything easing on the citizen, they cannot be MORE strict. Also, I am of the opinion that the building inspectors should be supervised in some capacity by a Professional Engineer. Even if it is to take conflicts like this to the P.E. for an official ruling where the P.E. is putting his reputation and risk of a malpractice lawsuit for frivolous condemnation on the line.
 
socaldano said:
I am of the opinion that the building inspectors should be supervised in some capacity by a Professional Engineer. Even if it is to take conflicts like this to the P.E. for an official ruling where the P.E. is putting his reputation and risk of a malpractice lawsuit for frivolous condemnation on the line.
Click to expand...

This made me laugh. If you saw the crap that I've failed because Engineers don't understand basic codes, you might have a different opinion.
 
You're being required to fire separate between a commercial kitchen and the bar area? If this is true your inspector has 0 clue. No requirement I know of from IBC or NFPA 101 or 1 to do so. If a wall was added on your original plan with a noted fire separation I'd request not doing so
 
Many of the examples of why we have bldg codes are the loss of life in Assembly Uses with low lights, adult entertainment and adult beverages, and people who haven't taken notice to how to get out when the backdrop and curtains catch fire, so the addition of the adult beverages to a simple catering hall (restaurant) is an important consideration even if the safety plan had an accurate representation of the table layout and legal occupancy number.

Than being said, I think everyone has mentioned we are just guessing without seeing the Life-Safety/ CO Plan and the Bldg Code Official's reference to what Code area he or she is using to base their objections on, or asserting there is a Safety concern

Does that help summarize everyone's well reasoned reaction to this issue?
 
TerryM said:
Hello, I’m a long time reader on the sidelines of this group. I’m sharing my experiences with the group with the hope that the veterans in the build code field can point me to the right direction.

I recently purchased a commercial building (banquet hall) in Spring 2024 located in the city of Sheboygan, WI (population of 50,000). During my first occupancy inspection of Spring 2024, the building inspector requested a life safety plan from the original architect, which I did provided. Everything was approved.

Fast forward to February 2025 (approximately 11 months later), I applied for a liquor license, which required an additional occupancy inspection. The new building inspector walked through the location and did not agree with the original design of the building and the life safety plan. He stated that the design of the building did not meet the safety code, not enough exits for the occupancy load, and new fire walls had to be created.

It should be notes, the building was built in 2010. Every permit was signed off and approved by the architect, engineers, construction company, and the city inspectors. The building use remains the same and no alterations or changes have been done to the building. The former building inspector retired and is no longer with the city.

At this point, I am having mixed feelings regarding the commercial building and City of Sheboygan. Did I purchase a unsafe building that was poorly designed to begin with? Is the new building inspector giving me to run around? The building was in compliance for 14 years but sudden is no longer in compliance? Is my situation worth taking legal actions? Should I bite the bullet and play by the new building inspector's rule? In a few years, what if a new building inspector wants new alterations to the building?

Any feedbacks or comments would greatly be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
Terry, quite the predicament. I specialize in residential, so not an IBC pro, but if there is a change of use, that would certainly trigger bringing up to the most recent code. As a commercial property owner, I hope you have a good attorney willing to have a 10 minute conversation with you. Prior to that, I always fall back on the phrase “SHOW ME”, to the inspector. I want in writing specifically what code/codes/ordinance etc. he is referring to. I want to review that and ascertain if there could be a misunderstanding or perhaps a grey area, prone to misinterpretation. If that is the case, I default to my state inspectors office and send my query along with a clear and concise explantation of the difference, and ask for their take, in writing. Should they side w/ me, I can present that to my local official, who might have a bruised ego, but may start to follow the letter of the law as the state inspectors office sees fit. I really think your attorney would be the best to sift over all and advise, money well spent, IMO. Best of luck.
 
For the price of bringing a lawyer in to fight this, TerryM can build the wall and open for business. I'm generally in favor of fighting things on principle, but what I do with my personal money has to be separate from business. He has been handed a solution -- pragmatism suggests taking it and moving on.

It sounds like the inspector has backed down considerably. Is the requirement for a rated wall a bit of face saving? Perhaps. Probably, even. It's still a way forward for TerryM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top